This is also kind of a nitpick, I guess, but I really don't think bringing up 300 will mollify someone that's upset over the usage of "race" in role-playing games...
TBH, most everything about a genre emulating retrograde 1930's values would annoy someone expecting progressive, modern values.
The issue isn't even "but can't you design a Sword & Sorcery game that doesn't offend?"
Of course you can.
Just as long as you don't impose on others the requirement for their S&S games to be updated to modern sensibilities. To some S&S aficionados (many even, I would think) the throw-back to a decidedly not-modern age is precisely what draws you to the genre.
Xoth clearly likes his S&S where men are mighty, and women are voluptuous. How do I know that? Because that's literally the exact words used in the introduction. Not featuring illustrations that evoke the setting would have reduced the product in my mind.
This is, at least for me, a genre that is steeped in racism, sexism and elitism. Does this mean I'm objectively wrong and that the game should be withdrawn? Of course not. Just like someone might visit a S&M club, you don't have to. Just play another game, and problem solved!
Crits double ALL damage dice, which includes things like Sneak Attack dice. I guess it's not as bad since paladins don't exist in the world but my concern it will cause unforeseen consequences and big swings in combat (especially boss battles).
Additionally, I don't believe there are any mechanics in the game that trigger automatic crits, aside from the paralyzed condition.
It's intended to "cause big swings in combat", that's the purpose of a Battle Cry!
That said, I'm going to adjust this so that Battle Cry has a range of 30 feet and only applies to each ally's first hit in the round, and Improved Battle Cry increases the range to 60 feet and applies to all hits in the round.
Thanks for all the input on the topic of "races" vs ethnicities, tribes, nations, etc. I've decided to keep the original term in the "Races of Xoth" chapter, as that's a term all D&D players are familiar with, and I trust the mature audience this book is intended for to understand that the term isn't used to promote racism.
I'll tweak the text in the chapter heading slightly to emphasize that these "races" are all (the same) humans with the same base statistics.
This is, at least for me, a genre that is steeped in racism, sexism and elitism. Does this mean I'm objectively wrong and that the game should be withdrawn? Of course not. Just like someone might visit a S&M club, you don't have to. Just play another game, and problem solved!
For those of you who have access to one or more of the Xoth adventure modules (XP1 to XP4), you'll know that they contain a disclaimer under the heading "A word to the wise":
Disclaimer from previous Xoth books said:
This book makes occasional references to mature themes such as human sacrifice, slavery, drugs, racism and perverted sexuality. Such themes, which are staples of the sword and sorcery genre, are simply assumed to be unpleasant but undeniable facts of life in the grim fantasy world described.
The sensible reader should quickly note that these themes are not the focus of the book; they are not explored in-depth, nor are they used gratuitously.
Remember that this is a work of fiction, and stuff in this book should not be taken as an endorsement of these things in the real world. That said, let’s get on with the game.
Thanks for all the input on the topic of "races" vs ethnicities, tribes, nations, etc. I've decided to keep the original term in the "Races of Xoth" chapter, as that's a term all D&D players are familiar with, and I trust the mature audience this book is intended for to understand that the term isn't used to promote racism.
I'll tweak the text in the chapter heading slightly to emphasize that these "races" are all (the same) humans with the same base statistics.
I'm going to discuss that disclaimer of Xoth's, but out of respect that this is an aside, I'm again going to do so within spoiler tags.
Disclaimer from previous Xoth books said:
This book makes occasional references to mature themes such as human sacrifice, slavery, drugs, racism and perverted sexuality. Such themes, which are staples of the sword and sorcery genre, are simply assumed to be unpleasant but undeniable facts of life in the grim fantasy world described.
The sensible reader should quickly note that these themes are not the focus of the book; they are not explored in-depth, nor are they used gratuitously.
Remember that this is a work of fiction, and stuff in this book should not be taken as an endorsement of these things in the real world. That said, let’s get on with the game.
Well, sure, they're not the focus of the book. But, unlike regular fantasy, S&S sources visit these mature themes over and over again. As you say, they're staples of the genre. This should tell you something.
And now I'm gonna tell y'all what that is
To me it would come across as disingenuous to not simply admit that there is definite allure in exploring them; just like any other forbidden fruit. Intellectual honesty then demands that you admit that yes, you are prioritizing your foci in a way that would not sit well with someone with a personal history of slavery or sexism or prejudice.
I guess I just want it out in the open: you play S&S (as opposed to vanilla fantasy) for pretty much the same base reasons you watch a sleazy horror movie. Why otherwise include free availability of nekkid slave girls or feature busty snake godesses as frenemies, or what about the puerile power fantasy that is playing a muscle mountain that crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women?
What I'm getting is that instead of pretending this isn't motivating me ("these themes are not the focus of the book; they are not explored in-depth, nor are they used gratuitously") I instead make the very reasonable request that nobody get personally offended by me watching said sleazy horror movie. Or that said movie even exists. Just don't rent stream it!
Issues over sensitivity has gotten out of hand to the point where I likely wouldn't even be allowed to discuss this at a certain other rpg forum on the net. Because they would interpret my interest in a S&S game as personally insulting or belittling them, when that is absolutely not the case. Just as it's nobody's business what movies I stream.
Moreover, I feel I need to point out that a S&S game where everybody is treated equally regardless of gender, race or personal beliefs is... just not S&S for me. Those "staples" really make or break the genre.
That obviously does not mean I condone racism or slavery or violence against women. (Even having to say it is tiresome to say the least)
It only means I occasionally want to play a rpg without having to scrub out racism, slavery and NPCs suffering violence and degradation - all things that has happened, is happening, and things that are appropriate to create a gritty mature setting. Not as "the focus" of the game, as in "the PCs are hired to kidnap Princess Jasmine and then spend the session detailing the various debasing treatments they have in store for her."
But I can't say it's just scenery either. As I said, these mature themes aren't just mentioned once by the rulebook and then never visited again.
One of the featured adventures features a girl who actively wants to birth a spider god. I'm sorry for having to say it, but if that isn't a nod to allure, to forbidden fruits (read "tentacle porn"), I don't know what is.
Just dropping that fact and then moving on as if it was just "unpleasant but undeniable facts of life" is not telling the whole truth. The truth is that this IS the driver of, no not the game as a whole, but certainly that adventure - the players are asked to actively engage with it, take a stand and decide how they judge this girl.
So let us not pretend that S&S will not upset people that are sensitive to, say, crude depictions of "mighty" heroes and "voluptuous" heroines, and what this says about people that are neither mighty nor voluptuous - and more to the point: people that want to play heroes that are neither mighty or voluptuous, perhaps because they identify as neither. Yes, if you're LBGT (to pick an example from up-thread) you are asked to enter a world that does not explore or even acknowledge this. Some people can handle the separation, others can't. Or won't.
S&S is a lot of great things. S&S is larger than life. S&S is sweaty, colorful, unrestrained and wild. But let's rip off the band-aid and get it over with - let's simply admit S&S is not about sensitivity and inclusiveness!
"That said, let’s get on with the game." - Right on!
The main difference between Bard and Druid is, the Druid will have more elemental magic − fire, lightning, stone, metal, water. This actually makes the Druid less like a shaman and more like an alchemist (whether a European, Arabian, or Chinese alchemist).
In comparison, the Bard magic is more subtle − and more shamanic − which is better for a low magic setting.
I would reserve the Druid for situations where you need its over-the-top flashy magic.
Do you have an answer to Xoth's question: If the Bard is reskinned as the Shaman, what would you reskin the Druid as?
I mean, Xoth obviously prefers to "activate" both classes.
While I agree Bard > Shaman makes a certain sense, the advantage of Bard > Courtier (which certainly makes sense as well) is that you can have a role for the Druid too (even if I agree the Shaman isn't a perfect fit for a D&D Druid).
